It seems that every week some new health research study pops up and is read to us on the daily news. The studies that actually make news are traditionally outlandish as to get people’s attention. These studies often are poorly constructed and have misinterpreted results based on inconclusive data read to us in a headline manner such as this,
Weight-Loss Surgery Better Than Diet and Exercise in Treating Type 2 Diabetes, Study Finds
Trial finds evidence that bariatric surgery beats lifestyle changes in resolving condition involving high blood sugar.
Not only is this not giving us any actual information, but headlines such as these can be extremely harmful and add to the increasing epidemic of obesity and diabetes. These headlines mislead the reader/listener and prevent them from learning helpful information that could actually make a positive impact in many individual’s lives. These headlines are extremely irresponsible and only work to perpetuate an already broken health care system.
There are some major questions that need to be asked regarding these studies and headlines such as…
With so much good research out there, why is so much time and money being spent to push the same narrative that created these health epidemics to begin with?
Who is benefiting from a study suggesting that surgery is better than the exercise and nutritional science that we know works?
Why isn’t more money being spent to help health care professionals and individuals better understand exercise and nutritional science?
The fact is that we learn the basic science behind nutritional and exercise science in elementary school, high school, and college. The problem is that we are not applying this basic science to better improve health and fitness. The only explanation must be money. Somebody is benefiting financially from these low grade research studies, because as the statistics show the majority of individuals are not benefiting health wise. With so many great studies that can be done, the level of corruption and/or ineptitude in mind boggling.
In Part II I will discuss the faults of the specific study stated above
